Lucia Tsaoussi, Deputy Associate Director for Research, Earth Science Division NASA Headquarters

1. NASA’s Earth Science Planning Updatepresented at theJoint Meeting of Ocean Sciences and Surface Water Hydrology in Support of Wide-Swath Altimetry MeasurementsOctober 30, 2006 Lucia Tsaoussi, Deputy Associate Director for Research, Earth Science Division NASA Headquarters

2. Presentation Outline • NASA’s Science Plan Development and review • Focus On Earth Science Issues Earth Science planning timeline, recommendations • Next Steps Near-term planning for plan amendment

3. Why a New Science Plan? • NASA released a new 2006 NASA Strategic Plan in February 2006, in keeping with the triennial requirement in the Government Performance and Results Act • The Science organizations follow with a strategic document describing their implementation of the NASA Strategic Plan • The Space and Earth Science Enterprises produced strategy documents in 2003; it is timely now for the Science Mission Directorate to produce its first strategy document • The Congress requires NASA to produce such a plan in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act signed last December

4. NASA’s Strategic Goals* • Strategic Goal 1: Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010. • Strategic Goal 2: Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with NASA’s international partner commitments and the needs of human exploration. • Strategic Goal 3: Develop a balanced overall program of science exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration. • Strategic Goal 4: Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement. • Strategic Goal 5: Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector. • Strategic Goal 6: Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations. * 2006 NASA Strategic Plan

5. NASA’s Strategic Goals* • Strategic Sub-goal 3A: Study Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs. • Strategic Sub-goal 3B: Understand the Sun and its effects on Earth and the solar system. • Strategic Sub-goal 3C: Advance scientific knowledge of the origin and history of the solar system, the potential for life elsewhere, and the hazards and resources present as humans explore space. • Strategic Sub-goal 3D: Discover the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe, and search for Earth-like planets. • Strategic Sub-goal 3E: Advance knowledge in the fundamental disciplines of aeronautics, and develop technologies for safer aircraft and higher capacity airspace systems. • Strategic Sub-goal 3F: Understand the effects of the space environment on human performance, and test new technologies and countermeasures for long-duration human space exploration. * 2006 NASA Strategic Plan

6. Purpose of NASA/SMD Science Plan • Respond to Authorization Language • NASA Authorization Act for 2005 (S.1281) • Title I Section 101 • (d) SCIENCE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall develop a plan to guide the science programs of NASA through 2016. • (2) CONTENT.—At a minimum, the plan developed under paragraph (1) shall be designed to ensure that NASA has a rich and vigorous set of science activities, and shall describe— (A) the missions NASA will initiate, design, develop, launch, or operate in space science and earth science through fiscal year 2016, including launch dates; (B) a priority ranking of all of the missions listed under subparagraph (A), and the rationale for the ranking; and (C) the budget assumptions on which the policy is based, which for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 shall be consistent with the authorizations provided in title II of this Act.

7. Purpose of NASA/SMD Science Plan (2) • Respond to Authorization Language • NASA Authorization Act for 2005 (S.1281) cont’ • (3) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the science plan under this subsection, the Administrator shall consider the following issues, which shall be discussed in the transmittal under paragraph (6): (A) What the most important scientific questions in space science and earth science are. (B) How to best benefit from the relationship between NASA’s space and earth science activities and those of other Federal agencies. (C) Whether the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission, SIM-Planet Quest, and missions under the Future Explorers Programs can be expedited to meet previous schedules. (D) Whether any NASA Earth observing missions that have been delayed or cancelled can be restored. (E) How to ensure the long-term vitality of Earth observation programs at NASA, including their satellite, science, and data system components. (F) Whether current and currently planned Earth observation missions should be supplemented or replaced with new satellite architectures and instruments that enable global coverage, and all-weather, day and night imaging of the Earth’s surface features. (G) How to integrate NASA earth science missions with the Global Earth Observing System of Systems.

8. Science Plan Draft Outline • Preamble: The NASA Science Story • Purpose & Progress • Summary of Science Questions and Prioritized Missions • Principle requirement in the NASA Authorization Act • Common Elements of Strategy • Research Areas • Bulk of the Plan; a section for each of the four science areas • Science Enabling and Enabled by Human Exploration • Summary: On the Brink of Understanding • Appendices

9. Key  RoadmapSMD ReviewDraftPresentationTable Top ReviewMeetingsDelivery SMD Science Plan Schedule 10/5/06 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 06 Helio Mars to NRC Earth (Internal Draft) Mars NRC Report     Solar System    Roadmaps Solar System (Exec Sum) Astro SMD Agency     SMD Management Review    4/20 5/31 9/29 Draft of Common Elements Sections  Roadmap Presentations to Subcommittees  Status / Content Presentation to NAC / SC  5/31  Draft of Science Division Sections 10/3  Italics = change from prior version of the schedule Draft 3 for SC, Subcommittees, NRC, Industry review 6/23  Meeting of SSB ad hoc Review Committee 7/11-13  9/13 Draft 3.5 for Sept. Subcommittee Meetings 9/15  Comments from NRC, NSAG, etc.  10/6 Draft 4 for NAC/SC, Other Agency Review Final Discussion with NAC / SC Table top review with PA&E 10/24 Table top review with OMB, OSTP 10/26 SSB report on impacts of FY07 request Draft for Agency & OMB clearance 11/27 12/8? Deliver to Congress AGU 12/11-15 NAC Science Committee 2/7-8 HQ? 2/8-9 HQ 5/17-18 JPL 7/19-20 JSC 10/10-12 GSFC Science Subcommittees Chairs telecon - 4/7 7/6-7 5/3-4 Conference 5 mtgs in mid, late Sept

10. Key  RoadmapMgmt ReviewDraftPresentationTable Top ReviewMeetingsDelivery SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8  9/13 Draft 3.5 for Sept. Subcommittee Meetings Detailed Schedule for Completion of SMD Science Plan 10/5/06 HS Mtg 9/25-26 PSS Mtg 9/13-15 9/27-28 ES Mtg AS Mtg 9/14-15 Critical window for revising draft  Comments from NRC, NSAG, etc. 9/15  9/19 SMD Senior Mgmt Mtg to Confirm Mission Priorities  Draft 4 for NAC/SC Review Provide Draft 4 for review by other Agencies 10/6 NAC 10/10-12 Comments from Other Agencies; Cut off for external comments from all sources 10/20 Italics = change from prior version of the schedule Draft 4.X if needed for NAC, other Agency comments 10/24 Table top review with PA&E 10/24 Table top review with OMB, OSTP 10/26 Draft 5.0 for editing by P&D 10/30 Draft 6.0 for layout by TAJ 11/13 11/27 Layout doc for editing SMD Doc ready to start Mgmt concurrence 12/6 Approved Doc (pre-pub) Agency 1/5 Deliver to Congress; post pdf version; send to printer 12/8 Printed copies available AGU

11. External Review Groups • NAC Science Committee & Subcommittees • National Research Council / Space Studies Board / Committee on Review of NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan • NASA Science Associates Group (major industrial contractors) • Partner US Government Agencies

12. NASA Advisory Council Structure

13. FYI - NRC’s Review Team • A. Thomas Young – Chair • Spiro K. Antiochus – NRL • Ana P. Barros – Duke U • James L. Burch – SRI • Antonio J. Busalacchi – U Md • Jack D. Farmer – Arizona State • Margaret G. Finarelli – GMU • John P. Huchra – Harvard- SCA • Ralph Lorenz – Univ of Arizona • Daniel McCammon – UW-Madison • Anneila I. Sargent – CIT • Jessica Sunshine – U Md • Carl Wunsch – MIT

14. Earth Science Approach and Key Issues • ESD Roadmap and Decadal Survey in progress • Legacy Science Focus Area roadmaps available and draft Research Plan (Jan 2005) reviewed by ESSAAC • Plan to implement missions that are currently in development and formulation • Utilize SFA Legacy roadmaps to initiate mission concept studies in a preparatory process to respond to decadal survey report • Continue to work interagency planning and collaborative programs 20-30 page section

15. Earth Science 2006 Science Plan Earth Science section (Interim Report) 6 Science Focus Area roadmaps; yet to be integrated into a single Earth Science roadmap 2005

16. Chapter 4: Earth Science • 4.1 Intellectual Foundation • 4.2 Science Objectives and Outcomes: The Six Science Focus Areas • 4.2.1 Atmospheric Composition • 4.2.2 Weather • 4.2.3 Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems • 4.2.4 Water and Energy Cycle • 4.2.5 Climate Variability and Change • 4.2.6 Earth Surface and Interior • 4.2.7 Interdisciplinary Science • 4.3 Mission Summaries • 4.3.1 Mission Classes • 4.3.2 Missions in Formulation and Development • 4.3.3 Planning for Future Missions • 4.3.4 Representative Future Mission Elements

17. Chapter 4: Earth Science (cont’) • 4.4 Program Elements • 4.4.1 Research and Analysis Program • 4.4.2 Applied Sciences Program • 4.4.3 Technology Program • 4.4.4 Modeling and High-End Computing • 4.4.5 Data and Information Systems • 4.4.6 Suborbital Science Program • 4.4.7 Earth Observation and Science Partnerships • 4.4.8 Earth Science Education and Public Outreach • 4.5 Earth Science Beyond 2016

18. Section 4.1: Intellectual Foundation • The compelling nature of Earth Science leading to NASA’s strategic goal: “study planet Earth from space to advance scientific understanding and meet societal needs” • The unique role of NASA among other US government agencies and contributions made by NASA programs • Program essential to the implementation of 3 major Presidential initiatives (CCSP, GEO, AOP).

19. NASA Strategic sub-goals • 3A.1: Understanding and improving predictive capability for changes in the ozone layer, climate forcing, and air quality associated with changes in atmospheric composition. • 3A.2: Enable improved predictive capability for weather and extreme weather events. • 3A.3: Quantify global land cover change and terrestrial and marine productivity, and improve carbon cycle and ecosystem models. • 3A.4: Quantify the key reservoirs and fluxes in the global water cycle and improve models of water cycle change and fresh water availability. • 3A.5: Understand the role of oceans, atmosphere, and ice in the climate system and in improving predictive capability for its future evolution. • 3A.6: Characterize and understand Earth surface changes and variability of the Earth’s gravitational and magnetic fields

20. Science Questions and Focus Areas Variability Forcing Response Consequence Prediction Precipitation, evaporation & cycling of water changing? Atmospheric constituents & solar radiation on climate? Clouds & surface hydrological processes on climate? Weather variation related to climate variation? Weather forecasting improvement? Global ocean circulation varying? Changes in land cover & land use? Consequences of land cover & land use change? Improve prediction of climate variability & change? Ecosystems, land cover & biogeochemical cycles? Motions of the Earth & Earth’s interior? Changes in global ocean circulation? Coastal region impacts? Ozone, climate & air quality impacts of atmospheric composition? Global ecosystems changing? Atmospheric composition changing? Atmospheric trace constituents responses? Carbon cycle & ecosystem change? Regional air quality impacts? Ice cover mass changing? Change in water cycle dynamics? Sea level affected by Earth system change? Earth surface transformation? Predict & mitigate natural hazards from Earth surface change? Climate Variability and ChangeAtmospheric Composition Carbon Cycle and EcosystemsWeather Water and Energy CycleEarth Surface and Interior

22. Earth-Sun Systems: Earth Science FY07 Budget

23. Earth Science Mission Priorities and Rationale Highest priority is given to missions that fulfill Legislative or Executive Branch mandates and inter-agency commitments. Systematic mission priorities are based on the importance of the measurement to global change research and the maturity of the operational transition plan. These are followed by missions that will make first-time global measurements: two pathfinder missions having been selected within the same competitive process have a relative priority inferred by the launch order. The representative future measurements are not listed in priority order. The forth-coming first NRC decadal survey for Earth science will identify science community priorities for future measurements, as well as begin to address issues arising from recent changes in the NPOESS program. Also influencing the eventual priorities is the US Integrated Earth Observation Strategy, which plans the US contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems.

24. Table 2.2.a Earth Science Mission Priorities and Rationale

25. Section 4.3.3 Planning for Future Missions • Mission Profile w/ESSP every two years • Medium Class Systematic missions every other year starting 2017 (5 missions thru 2025) • ESSP mission every other year starting 2014 (6 thru 2025) • Mission Profile w/ESSP every four years • Medium Class Systematic missions start 2016 (6 thru 2025) • ESSP missions every four years starting 2014 (3 thru 2025) • Mission Profile w/ESSP every four years includes Large Mission • Large mission in 2021 (1 thru 2025) • Medium Class mission starting 2016 (4 thru 2025) • ESSP mission starting 2014 (3 thru 2025)

26. Table 4.3 Potential Mission Elements/Measurements for Each Focus Area

27. Table 4.3 Potential Mission Elements/Measurements for Each Focus Area

28. Table 4.3 Potential Mission Elements/Measurements for Each Focus Area

29. NAC Subcommittee Plan Review • The NAC Science Committee discussed the draft Science Plan outline and approach in May and the draft (3.0) in July • (see next slide on the NAC’s recommendation and NASA’s response) • The Science Subcommittees reviewed the draft (3.0) in their July meeting(s) and provided comments • These comments were incorporated in Draft 3.75 • Most Science Subcommittees reviewed how we addressed their comments in their September meetings • Findings addressed in letters to the NAC SC • The NAC Chairman identified two issues with draft 3.0: • In his view, the draft was not well written. • NASA plans two rounds of professional editing before completion • The draft did not adequately address lunar science • Draft 4.0 articulates next steps in lunar science planning in each Science chapter. Chapter 8 is substantially revised in this direction

30. ESS COMMENTS ON DRAFT SCIENCE PLAN Adopt scenario of medium mission/2yrs, ESSP/4yrs First “open” mission in current plan is an ESSP in 2014; examine trade-off of scheduling medium mission instead Atmospheric composition: continuous( gair quality) global ( gclimate) measurement should be top priority, implies sentinel orbit (L1 or GEO). Better discuss cross-cutting opportunities in instruments & platforms across focus areas, importance of complementary technology (example: InSAR) Flesh out Earth Science objectives beyond 2016: Observation/prediction of rapid environmental change new technologies for Earth observation (microsatellites) Earth system modeling Better articulate science purpose of suborbital program, esp. UAVs Legacy road maps – move to Appendix. New road maps in 2007 (after decadal survey input) Overall document needs executive summary Acronym list at beginning of each chapter

31. National Research Council: Overview • Supportive of NASA’s approach to mission prioritization • “…the committee does not believe that NASA should or could produce a prioritized list across disciplines at this time.” • Concerned with NASA’s ability to carry out the plan given the budget • Extensive reference to the NRC report “An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Program” [SSB view of FY07 budget request] • Recommendations are cast in terms of “recommendations on the implementation and viability of the draft Science Plan” • Several are not comments on the Plan per se, but on actions SMD should take e.g., on R&A and controlling mission cost growth • Several good comments that will improve the document. These are now in work by the Science Plan team for incorporation in draft 4.0

32. NRC: Findings • “The draft NASA Science Plan successfully demonstrates that a major NASA objective is conducting scientific research…Portions of the plan do an excellent job of outlining the reasons that NASA carries out science missions” • “The committee supports the plan’s treatment of priorities on a discipline-by-discipline basis and concludes that NASA should not or could not produce a prioritized list across disciplines” • “…the current draft overemphasizes mission-specific work at the expense of strategies and steps for achieving goals in mission-enabling areas…” • “The draft Science Plan often declares an intention to implement a program or identifies a goal or mission as a top priority, but it does not indicate what steps it would take to achieve the goals…” (issue of mission cost growth, risk, schedule) • “…lacks a strategy for an integrated synthesis of the variety and volume of Earth observations generated by NASA…Earth system models…linking and cross-cutting the six [ES] interdisciplinary science focus areas…”

33. NRC: Recommendations • “…compare the key aspects of its 2003 Earth and space science plans with the 2006 plan in a list or table…” • “…provide some indication of the strategy it will use to determine how critically needed technologies will be developed for future missions…” • “…explicitly address realistic strategies for achieving the objectives of the mission-enabling elements…” • “Undertake appropriate studies through its advisory structure in order to develop a strategic approach to all of its R&A programs… • “Develop a strategic plan to address computing and modeling needs, including data and information stewardship…” • “NASA should improve mechanisms for managing and controlling cost growth…undertake independent, systematic, and comprehensive evaluations of the cost-to-complete of each of its space and Earth science missions…” • “NASA/SMD should move immediately to correct the problems caused by reductions in the base of R&A programs, small missions, and initial technology…”

34. NRC Recommendations for Earth Science Plan • NASA/SMD should incorporate into its Science Plan the recommendations of the NRC Earth science decadal survey interim report, and should incorporate the recommendations of the Earth science decadal survey final report when it is completed. • NASA/SMD should develop a science strategy for obtaining long-term, continuous, stable observations of the Earth system that are distinct from observations to meet requirements by NOAA in support of numerical weather prediction. • NASA/SMD should present an explicit strategy, based on objective science criteria for Earth science observations, for balancing the complementary objectives of (i) new sensors for technological innovation, (ii) new observations for emerging science needs, and (iii) long-term sustainable science-grade environmental observations.

35. Impacts of the NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy Certification • Presidential Decision Directive/NSTC-2 of May 5, 1994 created the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) • In 1999 NASA and the NPOESS Integrated Program Office (IPO) agreed on the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) as an alternative to the second round of Earth Observing System (EOS) mission • Due to a variety of technical problems, the completion cost for NPOESS grew by more then 25% initiating the Nunn-McCurdy process in December 2005 • The restructured program was certified on June 5, 2006 • Restructured NPOESS deletes much of the climate research observing capability • Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) asked for a white paper on the subject on June 25, 2006

36. NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy Certification Content Reductions

37. Summary of N-M Reductions and Actions • De-manifested Sensors: OMPS Limb Subsystem, TSIS, ERBS, Ocean Altimeter (ALT) and APS. • Reduced Coverage Sensors: VIIRS and CrIS • Reduced Capability Sensor: Conical Scanning Microwave Imager (CMIS) • Navy tasked with providing mitigation plan for ALT • NASA developed white paper now in review with NOAA for joint paper submission • OSTP request for costs and schedules to restore the original capabilities – preliminary costing completed • NASA/Navy/NOAA continuing discussions for joint future altimetry mission

38. Next Steps • Accommodate Science Plan reviews (including other agencies and White House Offices) to generate Version for NASA final approval and submit to Congress Dec. 2006 • Release of the Decadal Survey (DS) by the NRC to NASA (and other sponsoring agencies) late 2006 • Assessment & evaluation of NPOESS N-M impact by WH and NRC panel report • Develop Earth Science roadmap following DS priorities and mission studies results • Develop amendment for the Earth Science plan and submit to Congress mid-2007

39. Back up

40. Certified NPOESS Program Schedule

41. Science Mission Directorate Organization Associate Administrator (AA) (M. Cleave) Deputy AA (C. Hartman) Deputy AA for Programs(M. Luther) Deputy AA for Technology (G. Komar-Act) Chief Scientist (P. Hertz) Chief Engineer (K. Ledbetter) Management &Policy DivisionDir. (R. Maizel)Deputy (Vacant) HeliophysicsDivision Dir. (R. Fisher)Deputy (C. Gay) Earth Science Division Dir. (B. Cramer-Act)Deputy (J. Kaye-Act) Planetary Science Division Dir. (J. Green-Act)Dep. (S. Wojnar-Act) AstrophysicsDivision Dir. (R. Howard-Act)Deputy (Vacant) Flight (T. Hammer-Act) Mars Program(D. McCuistion) Budget (C. Tupper) Policy (Vacant) Applied Science (M. Frederick- Act) Administration (Vacant) Research (J. Kaye) As of: October 1, 2006

42. Coordinating External Advice • The standing advisory committees chartered to give advice to the Agency are: • NASA Advisory Council (NAC) • Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) • ISS Independent Safety Task Force • The NAC is the primary external group advising NASA on its implementation of national space policy • All other (formerly) independent groups and committees have been brought under the purview of the NAC • In this way, advice to NASA is coordinated and provided to the Administrator • The NRC performs studies at the request of the Congress or NASA, but is not part of the standing advisory process • Responsibility and accountability for planning and executing NASA’s programs resides with NASA managers

43. NAC Science Committee Members • Dr. Edward David [Chair] - NAS/NAE, EDD Inc. • Dr. Owen Garriott - Skylab & Spacelab astronaut • Dr. Alan Stern - SWRI; NH-Pluto PI • Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson - AMNH- NY • Dr. Bradley Jolliff - Washington U/St. Louis • Dr. Mark Robinson - Arizona St. Univ. • Dr. Lennard Fisk - NRC Space Studies Board chair (ex officio)

44. NAC Science Committee & Subcommittees S-06-5 Develop the Science Plan draft using the following guidelines: * Define key scientific questions for each area * Define reasonable progress in each area by 2016 * Describe the roles of major project elements (R&A, technology, large and small missions, etc) in each area. It is understood that the means will differ from question to question * Use OMB budget guidelines as the financial envelop to: - Define missions and specific programs - Define S&T investments that need to be made now to enable a robust set of program/mission options in 2011 - Use this planning exercise to inform FY08 budget formulation SMD agrees and has prepared a first external review draft of the Science Plan based on the President's FY 2007 budget for NASA. Initial review of the NAC Science Subcommittees was generally positive. The entire NAC will receive a revised draft for review at its October meeting. Note: NASA cannot use OMB budget guidelines in a document to be publicly released before the budget is approved. The FY 2008 budget will be presented in February 2007.

45. SMD Participation in the Vision for Space Exploration • SMD has the lead for the robotic Mars, solar system, and planet finding components of the Vision • SMD is working with ESMD on planning for science that enables and is enabled by the human exploration portion Vision • SMD is sponsoring an NRC study of Lunar science priorities; interim report delivered, final to be delivered in May 2007 • SMD and ESMD are jointly supporting the NASA Advisory Council’s Lunar Science Workshop planned for Feb 26-March 2, 2007 • SMD is funding the Moon Mineralogy Mapper mission on India’s Chandrayaan-1 mission • EMSD is funding a radiation environment instrument on SMD’s Mars Science Laboratory • SMD is funding an open solicitation for Lunar sortie science concepts for the early human lunar missions; proposals due Oct. 27 • The Discovery and New Frontiers Programs both currently provide opportunities for the science community to propose missions to accomplish lunar science investigations • SMD plays a program scientist role in LPRP • Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) data sets will be archived in the PDS and available to the community starting 6 months after the end of prime mission. • As funds can be identified, SMD plans to initiate a Lunar Data Analysis Program

46. NSAG Consensus Views • General Reactions: • “…a very good document…” • “…’answers the mail’ in responding to Congress with considerable justification for the approach the Agency is taking” • “…can be improved…increasing use of graphics, adding greater description of societal benefits, and a more comprehensive discussions of the interactions [between SMD and ESMD plans, esp. lunar science]” • Clearly a difficult task to develop an Earth science plan absent an NRC decadal survey; some detailed comments in Consolidated Comments • Responsiveness to Congressional Direction • “…addresses the Congressional direction in spirit while not necessarily to the letter” • “…the NSAG supports SMD’s approach of presenting its prioritization by disciplines” • “…creation of a single chart, showing all divisions’ missions together…through 2016” • NASA’s Prioritization Rationale • “…generally appear to be internally self-consistent and consonant with Congressional direction”

47. NSAG Consensus Views (cont’d) • Technology Development and Insertion • “…does not focus much attention on the technology development needed…” • “The Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) and the New Millennium Program could be described in greater detail…” • “Industry possesses a wealth of applicable technology, and NASA should address this resource and how it can be tapped in this plan” • Mission Size Mix • “…better define what is meant by ‘large’ or ‘small’ missions…” • “The plan shows a decrease in launch rate of AO missions…there is a consensus that this class of mission is very valuable…it is not our intent to make a specific recommendation in this regard” • Industry-NASA Relations • “…provide a clear statement of the value of the industry-government partnership” • “Greater collaboration with industry is recommended in order to get industry inputs and analyses early on in the process of conceptualizing architectures, missions, and relevant technologies”

48. Ocean Altimeter (ALT) • Oceans exert great influence on climate – huge sink for solar energy • Transport heat in ocean currents, release it back into the atmosphere as water vapor, transport it in the atmosphere, condenses, and returns as rain or snow – the hydrologic cycle • Satellites offer a synoptic view of oceans starting with Seasat (1978), Geosat (1985), TOPEX/Poseidon (1992), JASON-1 (2001), and OSTM (2008) • NOAA and Navy are planning future operational missions • NASA is working with the Navy and NOAA on an advanced altimetry mission that is backward compatible with OSTM and includes a Ka-Band interferometer ocean altimeter to provide wide swath coverage and greater spatial resolution • This approach enables the examination of land surface water (rivers and lakes) as well as costal waters that are not presently available with OSTM

49. Interim Report Recommendations • Proceed with the GPM and the Atmospheric Soundings from Geostationary Orbit (GIFTS) missions; • Evaluate plans for transferring needed capabilities to NPOESS (Ocean Vector Winds, LDCM, GLORY); • Develop a technology base for future Earth observation; • Reinvigorate the NASA Earth Explorer Missions Program; • Strengthen research and analysis programs; and • Strengthen baseline climate observations and climate data records.

50. Assessment • Recommendation 2 addressed • Recommendation 1 has not been addressed • Recommendations 3,4, and 6 are mentioned but without providing objective, as well as strategic and tactical vision • Recommendation 5 is not addressed at all.